More On Term Limits

We got quite of bit of mail on term limits and the House vote on Feb. 12. Here's a sample, and if you'd like to weigh in on any of the issues of the day, drop us a note at at editor@AllPolitics.com Be sure to include your name and home town.

'No Longer An Effective System'

I agree that we have term limits in the form of elections. However, this
is no longer an effective system. Politicians do things that will get
them re-elected, not the things they know we need. If they knew their
time was limited anyway, they would have no reason to dodge the tough
issues and might start voting the necessary, unpopular vote!

-- Todd Szymczak, Ann Arbor, Mich., Feb. 17

'A Job For The Experienced'

I am a Republican and find myself following a different path
from the party on this issue. 1994 proved to us that term limits are
not necessary. If we as Americans agree to rid ourselves of the
abusive and the corrupt, then so be it. However, if I am impressed by my
Senator or Congressman I may support them for decades to come.

I have worked in politics at several levels and am convinced that
elected office is a job for the experienced. It is a complex system of
committees and political maneuvers. For the sake of one's own district
incumbents are more valuable than the so-called fresh perspective.

Term limits should be implemented for committee chairs and leadership,
but please do not limit my choice.

-- Bill Miller, Athens, Ohio, Feb. 16

'The Only Effective Way'

Term limits are the only effective way to ensure that the American
people do not lose their voice in Washington. Incumbent legislators
have an enormous campaign advantage over any challenger with all the
free publicity that comes with public office. I personally believe that
Washington corrupts many a good person over the course of a career
and that by changing the guard on a regular basis, we can eliminate a
lot of those problems.

-- Orion Deters, Spring Grove, Minn., Feb. 17

'Goes Much Deeper'

If you look behind every issue, there is a question that needs to be answered
that goes much deeper than the issue raised... The
issue of term limits should force everyone to answer one question: What is
wrong with our election system?

The responses so far have been in favor of using elections instead of term
limits. But the election system is unfair. New people who are better and more
qualified to lead don't get a chance because they need millions of dollars just
to run one commercial. This is not a fair democracy; this is comparable to a
business monopoly.

To maintain a democracy, something must be done. In my mind, there are two
options.

First, make the election process fair by giving each candidate a chance in a
sort of run-off debate system. Of course, certain criteria must be met for you
to be a candidate, but financial status shouldn't be one of them. Through this
limited (but free to the candidate) televised debate system, people would get
information about a candidate's ability to perform and think under pressure,
plus give candidates a chance to voice their opinions and counter opinions live
on national television. (I have to add here not to limit these debates based on
standard television mentality. In other words, don't stop the show because it's
time for "Murder, She Wrote.")

Second, impose term limits. Make them around 12 years to not limit the
potential of people, but still give others an opportunity. These term limits
could be raised if the candidate gets over 85 percent of the vote, but could not go
beyond 18 years.

Anyone who argues against term limits for Congress has to be against term
limits for the president. But we all know what power can do to people and it is
happening in Washington 10 times worse than anywhere else.

One could also argue that the fact that Strom Thurmond got elected at age 96 is
proof that the voters are capable of making stupid choices. Or one could argue
that our election system has failed when a new candidate can't beat a dead incumbent.

-- John Melbye, Rice Lake, Wis., Feb. 17

'Very Significant Problems'

The need for term limits stems from some very significant problems in
our election process. Firstly, there is the problem of campaign
finance. The founders of our nation expected that we would all be
involved in the running of our government. They believed in citizen
legislators. Unfortunately, PACs, lobbyists and the like have a stake
in getting "the right person" elected, currying favor with him and
perpetuating the system we have now. With all of the money supporting
elections (mostly supporting the re-election of incumbents) it is nearly
impossible for all but a truly wealthy challenger to stand a chance.

Secondly, the very idea that congressional districts can be mapped by
any but geographic standards is ludicrous. Once elected though,
officials can and do remap districts to ensure that they have ample
support from "their district".
If these problems were addressed there would be no need for term limits.

We could easily solve the finance problem by limiting contributions to
$100 per voter. No donations allowed from companies, organizations or
any non-voter.

-- Anthony Montano, Orange, Conn., Feb. 15

'Look First At The President's Term Limit'

Before I even think about Congressional term limits, I look first at the
president's term limit. FDR was an incredibly popular president that
Republicans just couldn't beat. Death was the only thing that could
remove him from office. And Republicans wrote up an amendment so that
they would never have to face the reign of another Franklin Roosevelt.
Based on my neutrality towards these limits, I think either both the
legislative and executive branches of the federal government should face
term limits, or that there should be none at all.

The problem is that a bill imposing Congressional term limits will
simply never get past Congress. The only legislation that has any hope
on this matter would be a Constitutional Amendment. And right now, I'm
not too thrilled about any amendments that are up for approval.

-- Dan Premo, Allegany, N.Y., Feb. 15

'The 'Lame Duck' Argument'

One argument that never seems to be discussed in debates on term limits is
the "lame duck" argument. Having term limits are supposed to make
legislators more concerned with the common good than the next election.
But if half of Congress is in its last term and doesn't have to worry
about another election, isn't this a formula for corruption? And even if a
legislator refuses to be corrupt, doesn't the lack of an upcoming election
remove any incentive for legislators to pay attention to the views of
constituents? At best, term limits will result in more legislators
"speaking their own mind" no matter what the public wants. At worst, they
will result in widespread corruption.

-- Renato Mariotti, Chicago Ill., Feb. 16

'The Real Problem...Money!'

Term Limits failed again in Congress. That's to be expected. Without
real campaign finance reform, term limit is an absolute necessity!
With all that money, the incumbents often beat off the challengers,
often unfairly financially. That is the real problem...money! MONEY! Wake up!

-- R. Pearson, Temple, Texas, Feb. 15

'Career Politicians'

Anything that deters people from becoming career politicians is a good
thing. Folks who have their own life together and concentrate on maximizing
their own happiness aren't generally motivated to "save" society from
itself. Perhaps if government service was a "quickie" we would attract more
of these types of individuals.

-- George Hasara, Franklin, N.C., Feb. 16

'So Many Inherent Advantages'

It's not a question of whether the American people are "idiots" or
whether we "already have term limits in the form of elections" as some
writers have said here. What happens is that incumbents have so many
inherent advantages, befriend so many special interests and the voters
are so apathetic that the playing field is tilted so much it becomes
almost impossible to vote them out of office. We are ambivalent as
usual. We either need to accept the fact that we have professional,
lifetime office holders who become co-opted by the "system" and special
interests, or we institute term limits. I think, based on my
observations of our political landscape for many years, that we need
term limits now.